EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1914
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12377 Posts
| ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
A supporter of liberalism, a political philosophy founded on ideas of liberty and equality. - Classical liberalism, a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, non-violent modification of political, social, or economic institutions, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties. - Conservative liberalism, a variant of liberalism, combining liberal values and policies with conservative stances or, more simply, representing the right-wing of the liberal movement. - Economic liberalism, the ideological belief in organizing the economy on individualist lines, such that the greatest possible number of economic decisions are made by private individuals and not by collective institutions. - Social liberalism, the belief that liberalism should include social justice and that the legitimate role of the state includes addressing issues such as unemployment, health care, education, and the expansion of civil rights [...] At least two of those are almost mutually exclusive, even before we get to "European liberalism" and "liberalism in the United States". Here in Australia, "the Liberal Party" are mainstream conservatives. In Canada, "the Liberal Party" is centre-left. You can call it an anglosphere thing, but we're speaking english so unfortunately we have to work around the uselessness of this language. Either way, this is not that big a deal aside from GH. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23517 Posts
On November 30 2019 19:51 Belisarius wrote: When the Wikipedia page starts like this, I do think it's unwise to use it without qualification. At least two of those are almost mutually exclusive, even before we get to "European liberalism" and "liberalism in the United States". Here in Australia, "the Liberal Party" are mainstream conservatives. In Canada, "the Liberal Party" is centre-left. You can call it an anglosphere thing, but we're speaking english so unfortunately we have to work around the uselessness of this language. Either way, this is not that big a deal aside from GH. (social) liberal seems to fit the bill pretty well (though more conservative in the US) from a quick glance but neo is shorter so if I have to add something for clarity I'll probably stick with that. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On November 30 2019 10:28 GreenHorizons wrote: Someone asks you to define the words you are using so there is a common base for discussion and instead you suggest we can interpret the your words however we want says it all really. So you declare that your intention is to be without purpose.Don't think it matters much to this discussion since I'm leaving it up to the reader to define "liberal media outlet" for themselves. Also this: On November 30 2019 19:59 GreenHorizons wrote: (social) liberal seems to fit the bill pretty well (though more conservative in the US) from a quick glance but neo is shorter so if I have to add something for clarity I'll probably stick with that. You can't have both neoliberalism and social liberalism as your meaning of "liberal". That makes absolutely no sense. They are not related to each other except they happen to have liberal in the name. At this point you are just using "liberal" to mean "everything that I disagree with". I highly doubt that blaming social liberalism, the belief that liberalism should include social justice and that the legitimate role of the state includes addressing issues such as unemployment, health care, education, and the expansion of civil rights correlates with how you've been using liberalism. If you have, why are you against social justice? Why are so so vehemently against the expansion of social rights? | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12377 Posts
On November 30 2019 19:51 Belisarius wrote: When the Wikipedia page starts like this, I do think it's unwise to use it without qualification. At least two of those are almost mutually exclusive, even before we get to "European liberalism" and "liberalism in the United States". Here in Australia, "the Liberal Party" are mainstream conservatives. In Canada, "the Liberal Party" is centre-left. You can call it an anglosphere thing, but we're speaking english so unfortunately we have to work around the uselessness of this language. Either way, this is not that big a deal aside from GH. Conservatives have been pretending to be liberals basically since Burke, which is how you get conservative parties with liberal in the name or people like Dave Rubin saying they are classical liberals when they absolutely aren't. There are different tendencies in the definitions you gave but ultimately we ought to be in the same general political area. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
Also you say "Conservatives have been pretending to be liberals" and I immediately think, what type of liberal, so diverse is the term, that what you just wrote is completely devoid of any meaning, so open to interpretation it is. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23517 Posts
On November 30 2019 13:33 Nebuchad wrote: Liberal just means on the social left and the economic right. I don't deny that the american use is a bit different but ultimately it's not that confusing. Yup. Basically "liberals", or "neoliberals" going forward to avoid people being confused, support gay marriage and Jeff Bezos to try to make it as simple/reductive as possible. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On November 30 2019 22:36 GreenHorizons wrote: Yup. Basically "liberals" support gay marriage and Jeff Bezos to try to make it as simple/reductive as possible. What do you have against gay marriage and media that supports it GH? Is this what you meant after all these year of using liberal? After all your recent posts railing against "liberal media" , you just simply don't want gay marriage? Why can't you just say that? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23517 Posts
On November 30 2019 22:36 Dangermousecatdog wrote: What do you have against gay marriage and media that supports it GH? Nothing against gay marriage lmao, the issue is with liberal media outlets as I discussed with DPB. Is this what you meant after all these year of using liberal? After all your recent posts railing against "liberal media" , you just simply don't want gay marriage? Why can't you just say that? Are you okay? | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On November 30 2019 22:39 GreenHorizons wrote: Well shit GH, how about you don't go and change your posts retrospectively so the responses don't make any sense afterwards? Is this going to be like talking with danglars again? Am I going to have to quote every single post before replying?Nothing against gay marriage lmao, the issue is with liberal media outlets as I discussed with DPB. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23517 Posts
On November 30 2019 22:39 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Well shit GH, how about you don't go and change your posts retrospectively so the responses don't make any sense afterwards? Is this going to be like talking with danglars again? Am I going to have to quote every single post before replying? I doubt it's my edits that made your post "not make any sense". I generally prefer people quote what they respond to since it can often be a bit ambiguous what exactly they are responding to. Quoting provides valuable context in that way, and would help avoid miscommunications like these. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On November 30 2019 22:36 GreenHorizons wrote: This was what you actually wrote. Instead of writing that you rewrote the post, please read it now, you decided to write "are you okay" as if I wasn't responding to your original unedited post, which is unbeleivably disgusting and unscrupulous.Yup. Basically "liberals" support gay marriage and Jeff Bezos to try to make it as simple/reductive as possible. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23517 Posts
On November 30 2019 22:56 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I am not playing your stupid game GH . This was what you actually wrote. Instead of writing that you rewrote the post, please read it now, you decided to write "are you okay" as if I wasn't responding to your original unedited post, which is unbeleivably disgusting and unscrupulous. I don't understand what you're mad at me for so I'm just going to let you have whatever moment you're having. EDIT: To be clear I edited in your edit and ",or neoliberal going forward to avoid confusion," so people don't leave with the impression I'm being deceitful. Mods can post any version of the edit you want if there's any further dispute. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12377 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On November 30 2019 22:36 GreenHorizons wrote: Yup. Basically "liberals" support gay marriage and Jeff Bezos to try to make it as simple/reductive as possible. Now go compare it with whatever he has probably edited multiple times by now. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28728 Posts
But those liberal still don't support the structural change required to genuinely tackle climate change (from GH's pov), nor the type of structural change that would make non-gay oppressed minorities able to compete on a level playing field.. You can, of course, disagree, and argue that liberal media does a sufficiently good job addressing the dangers of climate change, or argue that structural societal changes are not necessary to address concerns of minorities. That would, however, take more effort.. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12377 Posts
On November 30 2019 23:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote: This is what GH originally wrote. Now go compare it with whatever he has probably edited multiple times by now. I went and compared and it says the same thing, as far as I can tell. Also there's nothing wrong with the post you originally took offense with, as you present it. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28728 Posts
On November 30 2019 23:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote: This is what GH originally wrote. Now go compare it with whatever he has probably edited multiple times by now. I don't understand how any of this makes you think GH is opposed to gay marriage. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
I am not going to do a GH and quote you and ask write "Are you okay?" I am not going to say "I'm just going to let you have whatever moment you're having." when it was I who edited the post so your response now doesn't make any sense. How would you feel now if I did that to you? | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On November 30 2019 22:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Yup. Basically "liberals" support gay marriage and Jeff Bezos to try to make it as simple/reductive as possible. Edited post was this: On November 30 2019 22:36 GreenHorizons wrote: Yup. Basically "liberals", or "neoliberals" going forward to avoid people being confused, support gay marriage and Jeff Bezos to try to make it as simple/reductive as possible. They have completely different meanings. You can see he edited his post afterwards because his hurriedly edited post is disjointed and doesn't make any sense anyways. Now if he went and wrote that he changed his post so the meaning had completely changed that would be fine. I could had then changed my post to reflect the edited post. But he didn't. He instead decided to play this stupid game where he edited the post after that to ask if I was okay, knowing that I would now look like I misread his now edited post. | ||
| ||
